A lot of organizational models “succeed” in the sense that they grow and spread, but they do so at a terrible cost to their rank and file members. It’s like the memetic equivalent of a terrible plague. Just because it grows and spreads doesn’t mean you want to catch it. LDS is right up there with Scientolology and criminal street gangs. You demonstrate your commitment to the group by metaphorically cutting off your own feet, and then you stay because you can’t run away any more.
Doesn’t it matter a lot that Mormon doctrine is false from beginning to end? Am I wrong in thinking that it’s bad when a cause so obviously wants to be a cult ?
Here’s one take on the experience of being a Mormon missionary:
The true meaning and essence of the mission is to make a young man go through two years of complete and living hell. The worse the experience is, the more the child believes he has sacrificed, therefore solidifying the investment value of a completed mission. When the elder finally returns to the flock what else is there to do but protect the investment? After all, he paid for it with two years of blood, sweat and tears. He purchased the investment with the currency of youth. You’re only 20 once. The idea that the best part of your golden youth was squandered knocking on doors hassling people with religious propaganda is unbearable. Return missionaries are all too willing to adopt the company line, close ranks with other returned missionaries and protect the precious investment. At least this was my experience.
Tough to tell from the outside. There’s a lot of stuff on the internet about the Mormon mission experience, but, unsurprisingly, it’s affected by selection bias. Ex mormons can tell some horror stories. Current Mormons still active in the church tend to report much more positive memories, but here’s an evaluation of the pluses and minuses of the missionary experience by believing Mormons.
That seems fair. I’m not sure why I didn’t think of that interpretation. Two years with the only gains being some emotional experiences and learning to sell (to a specific script) is mostly a waste, like cutting your feet off would be.
My friend stayed Mormon through an objectively successful two year mission. He had no problem leaving the church a few years later. But he’s unusually intelligent and principled.
Doesn’t it matter a lot that Mormon doctrine is false from beginning to end?
Why would it?
In some sense, it simply does not matter what crazy things your neighbor believes, because that’s not what determines his value as a neighbor. I would prefer Mormons to the general population as neighbors.
And, as a strategy- if this works for people that are obviously crazy, that suggests it’ll work for people who are (hopefully obviously) sane. If people went door to door in business shirts and ties and tried to convince people that they should join an evolution appreciation society, I expect they might do as well or better than the Mormons.
It would matter if the doctrine—reward and punishment in the afterlife, for example—is tied with the practice of the members. I would suggest that the Mormon church, like a lot of churches, motivates its members at least partly with false threats and false rewards based on a fictitious afterlife. If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy. Rationalists cannot use these methods and remain rationalists.
unfortunately, much of the motivation. It’s easy to get yourself motivated to do something if you have a clear reward for it. If you truly believe that working to convert people to your faith will get you into heaven, it’s not hard to get up in the morning and go do it. If you think that there’s a 1 percent chance that one of the 57 people you talk to today will become slightly less wrong about the world and go on to lead a somewhat happier life, it’s a lot less motivating. I think the entire unpaid ministry/missionary thing would be much harder to get recruits for here than in the LDS.
If people went door to door in business shirts and ties and tried to convince people that they should join an evolution appreciation society, I expect they might do as well or better than the Mormons.
What’s the point of having an evolution appreciation society?
What if someone disproves evolution, but your society keeps going anyway?
We can perhaps study delivery method separately from payload: consider the retrovirus. I think the broadly described LDS organizational model alone doesn’t imply any terrible costs to the members.
That may be a valid point. Sometimes the medium and the message are quite separate.
With that said, the “LDS organizational model” as broadly described in the original post was a bit short on details. It’s described that everybody works, nobody is paid. I’m sure that’s convenient for the Mormon church as an organization, but why are the rank and file members of the organization so willing to pay this price? Conspicuous by its absence in the original post is any mention of how members are required to abstain from alcohol and caffeine, store up supplies in the event of a tribulation, and tithe ten percent of their income to the church. It costs a lot to stay a member of the Mormon church in good standing. Saying it’s “the culture” doesn’t really go a long way as an explanation as to why the members are willing to pay this price.
I would suggest that at least one of the reasons that Mormons submit to these costs is the promise of heavenly reward. A rationalist community cannot adopt this method.
Neither could a rationalist community adopt the specific practices of the Mormon missionaries, even if they wanted to. Mormon missionaries don’t try to attract converts by means of rational argument—they are specifically forbidden to debate or argue. The same page says missionaries can only read “books, magazines, and other material authorized by the Church.”
A rationalist community could only adopt the methods and practices of the Mormon church by abandoning rationality.
It’s described that everybody works, nobody is paid. I’m sure that’s convenient for the Mormon church as an organization, but why are the rank and file members of the organization so willing to pay this price?
Well, I do volunteer work myself, so unpaid work is certainly not a phenomenon unique to Mormonism or religion. Perhaps a more detailed look at volunteerism’s motivations and psychology is in order?
Agreed.
A lot of organizational models “succeed” in the sense that they grow and spread, but they do so at a terrible cost to their rank and file members. It’s like the memetic equivalent of a terrible plague. Just because it grows and spreads doesn’t mean you want to catch it. LDS is right up there with Scientolology and criminal street gangs. You demonstrate your commitment to the group by metaphorically cutting off your own feet, and then you stay because you can’t run away any more.
Doesn’t it matter a lot that Mormon doctrine is false from beginning to end? Am I wrong in thinking that it’s bad when a cause so obviously wants to be a cult ?
I grew up Mormon (for my first ~12 years). It’s not as harmful as Scientology. I have no idea what you mean about cutting your feet off.
Here’s one take on the experience of being a Mormon missionary:
Your mileage may vary.
Yes. There are way worse fates. It is not living hell to be an annoying advertiser.
I do not know how nice Mormons are to each other. But I would guess the group bonding usually rather pleasant.
Tough to tell from the outside. There’s a lot of stuff on the internet about the Mormon mission experience, but, unsurprisingly, it’s affected by selection bias. Ex mormons can tell some horror stories. Current Mormons still active in the church tend to report much more positive memories, but here’s an evaluation of the pluses and minuses of the missionary experience by believing Mormons.
That seems fair. I’m not sure why I didn’t think of that interpretation. Two years with the only gains being some emotional experiences and learning to sell (to a specific script) is mostly a waste, like cutting your feet off would be.
My friend stayed Mormon through an objectively successful two year mission. He had no problem leaving the church a few years later. But he’s unusually intelligent and principled.
Run of the mill hazing outcome!
Why would it?
In some sense, it simply does not matter what crazy things your neighbor believes, because that’s not what determines his value as a neighbor. I would prefer Mormons to the general population as neighbors.
And, as a strategy- if this works for people that are obviously crazy, that suggests it’ll work for people who are (hopefully obviously) sane. If people went door to door in business shirts and ties and tried to convince people that they should join an evolution appreciation society, I expect they might do as well or better than the Mormons.
It would matter if the doctrine—reward and punishment in the afterlife, for example—is tied with the practice of the members. I would suggest that the Mormon church, like a lot of churches, motivates its members at least partly with false threats and false rewards based on a fictitious afterlife. If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy. Rationalists cannot use these methods and remain rationalists.
Ok. Does it look like that’s the case? Which of these lessons hinge on reward and punishment in the afterlife?
unfortunately, much of the motivation. It’s easy to get yourself motivated to do something if you have a clear reward for it. If you truly believe that working to convert people to your faith will get you into heaven, it’s not hard to get up in the morning and go do it. If you think that there’s a 1 percent chance that one of the 57 people you talk to today will become slightly less wrong about the world and go on to lead a somewhat happier life, it’s a lot less motivating. I think the entire unpaid ministry/missionary thing would be much harder to get recruits for here than in the LDS.
What’s the point of having an evolution appreciation society?
What if someone disproves evolution, but your society keeps going anyway?
We can perhaps study delivery method separately from payload: consider the retrovirus. I think the broadly described LDS organizational model alone doesn’t imply any terrible costs to the members.
That may be a valid point. Sometimes the medium and the message are quite separate.
With that said, the “LDS organizational model” as broadly described in the original post was a bit short on details. It’s described that everybody works, nobody is paid. I’m sure that’s convenient for the Mormon church as an organization, but why are the rank and file members of the organization so willing to pay this price? Conspicuous by its absence in the original post is any mention of how members are required to abstain from alcohol and caffeine, store up supplies in the event of a tribulation, and tithe ten percent of their income to the church. It costs a lot to stay a member of the Mormon church in good standing. Saying it’s “the culture” doesn’t really go a long way as an explanation as to why the members are willing to pay this price.
I would suggest that at least one of the reasons that Mormons submit to these costs is the promise of heavenly reward. A rationalist community cannot adopt this method.
Neither could a rationalist community adopt the specific practices of the Mormon missionaries, even if they wanted to. Mormon missionaries don’t try to attract converts by means of rational argument—they are specifically forbidden to debate or argue. The same page says missionaries can only read “books, magazines, and other material authorized by the Church.”
A rationalist community could only adopt the methods and practices of the Mormon church by abandoning rationality.
Well, I do volunteer work myself, so unpaid work is certainly not a phenomenon unique to Mormonism or religion. Perhaps a more detailed look at volunteerism’s motivations and psychology is in order?